Slashdot Mirror


San Francisco Fire Chief Bans Helmet-Mounted Cameras For Firefighters

New submitter niftymitch sends this quote from an article at SFGate: "San Francisco's fire chief has explicitly banned firefighters from using helmet-mounted video cameras after images from a battalion chief's Asiana Airlines crash recording became public and led to questions about first responders' actions leading up to a fire rig running over a survivor. ... Filming the scene may have violated both firefighters' and victims' privacy, Hayes-White said, trumping whatever benefit came from knowing what the footage shows. 'There comes a time that privacy of the individual is paramount, of greater importance than having a video,' Hayes-White said. Critics, including some within the department, questioned the chief's order and its timing — coming as Johnson's footage raised the possibility of Fire Department liability in the death of 16-year-old Ye Meng Yuan. .. [Battalion Chief Kevin Smith, president of the employee group that includes Johnson, said,] 'The department seems more concerned with exposure and liability than training and improving efficiency. Helmet cams are the wave of the future - they can be used to improve communication at incidents between firefighters and commanders.'"

11 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Hah by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when did government care about the right to privacy?

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When it became so very important to them...when using it to justify not having any record or documentation of their misdeeds.

      Just like everything else people in power pretend to care about.

  2. It is ALL about liability. by MarkvW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is all about not creating evidence that could cost the government money.

    1. Re:It is ALL about liability. by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Funny

      We only spend future money. Take that, kids!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  3. Privacy for the government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, you don't understand. The people have privacy, not government officials acting in their official capacity. The firefighter has no expectation of privacy when they are performing their official duties. This camera ban seems like an attempt to jump on the wave of NSA hate in order to provide cover for future incompetence.

    1. Re:Privacy for the government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? Because when my house is on fire they're allowed to point their helmet cams at my dick as far as I'm concerned, as long as they point the water hose at my house!

  4. If privacy is what matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If privacy is what matters, then require that any firefighter with a camera keep the memory locked in a secure location at the station. Simply banning the cameras, especially after this incident, requires that they don't want to be subject to turning over any evidence. It's class CYA, plain and simple. I don't know who has the power to argue against this. These guys are union; but the union reps can surely see that such things might be used against them as well. They'll probably go along with the ban. The politicians are paid by the unions. Nobody really stands for the people here the way I see it. The people would, IMHO, best be served by having as much information as possible provided that it's properly secured, which is really not that hard to do.

  5. I get to bust this one out again. by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck you, you fucking fucks!

    The only reason you could want to ban cameras is to hide your mistakes. You have no expectation of privacy in public, especially when you're working to protect and serve the public. If anything, this shows why cameras should be MANDATORY . With cameras on every responder and 360 degrees of coverage from the top of every vehicle. If you screw up, you need to know it, determine liability, see what led to the mistake(s), and develop ways to avoid screwing up like that in the future.

    SF's fire chief needs a swift kick in the groin.

  6. Yeah, this is a cliche by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you don't have anything to hide, why are you against cameras?

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  7. This news is already out of date: by cryptomancer · · Score: 5, Informative

    "In an apparent about-face, San Francisco Fire Department officials said Monday they will revisit restrictions on firefighters' use of helmet-mounted cameras after concluding that footage from the Asiana Airlines crash showed the value of the devices."

    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SFFD-backtracks-may-allow-helmet-cameras-4744090.php

    --
    Yes, we understand these tags always apply: fud, dupe, typo, slashdotted, topic name
  8. I'm glad that they were filming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seven FOIA requests and a wad of cash, and I was able to see my autistic son being abused by government employees.

    I am grateful for the cameras.